Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc.

I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Additionally, many posts in this blog contain original material and previously unreported news. Any media outlet, website or blogger that reports previously unreported news or quotes opinions obtained from this website is ethically obligated to credit me or my blog in their initial report on the subject.

She adds her own perception and thoughts to a column by one of my favorite authors, Mark Steyn, and succinctly spells out just why so many conservatives have a healthy fear of big government: because it stifles individual freedom in favor of a dependency upon the structure and ends the founders' concept of a limited government. As Steyn explains:

"I've been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible."

And both see the takeover of the health care system as a major component to ensuring life-long dependency upon government and the politicians/bureaucrats who run it - reason enough to reject it outright.

7 comments:

Is it all about larger government and public dependency? I agree that if Obamacare becomes a reality then we will have a much larger federal government right along with more governmental control over our lives. In essence, the government is no different than any other living organism. It must grow or it will shrink, and if it shrinks it will no longer be able to support the burgeoning population of statist parasites that it now has.

Would you buy a car and have to wait four years to drive it while making payments immediately after you purchase it? That's what this health care bill is all about. I don't think most Americans know this. If they do and they still support the president and the Democrats, they obviously don't mind their health care being controlled by the federal government.

mud_rake - you can try all you want to make those of us who reject a bigger government look bad, but your efforts in that regard don't change the fact that a bigger government has NEVER in history proven to be a good thing.

And if a 2,000 page bill isn't enough to scare even you, I don't know what will! :)

mud_rake: you were warned about the rules of this blog and told that comments that do not comply will be rejected. This most recent response contains no insults so it was posted.

However, I fail to understand how you can use Medicare as an example of a program that is 'successful.'

It limits care, limits payments, requires 'supplemental insurance' to compliment it, is basically a ponzi scheme that would be declared illegal if done by anything other than government and is going bankrupt with unsustainable obligations that range in the billions.

From the Washington Post in 2007:

THE RELEASE last week of the annual report of the Medicare trustees underscores an unavoidable fact that too many politicians have nonetheless been avoiding for too long: Of all the entitlement programs, Medicare is on the most dangerously unsustainable financial course, squeezed simultaneously by rising health-care costs and an aging population.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050401871.html

The HI trust fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years. At the beginning of 2009 the assets of the HI trust fund were $321 billion and are projected to be exhausted during 2017, under the intermediate assumptions. The HI trust fund does not meet the short-range test of financial adequacy. Although the short-range financial status of the HI trust fund has not been considered satisfactory since 2003, the outlook has further deteriorated as a result of the current economic recession.

But even if this were a 'successful' program, it is only one of many programs within a 'big government' and doesn't serve as a justification for continually expanding the size, scope, power and control of a federal government.

Your respectful and polite response (meaning no insults and on topic) is welcomed.